|
This data is misleading. Don't let it confuse you into thinking that you can get a bad split and waste mining time and still not lose worker building time after your first worker. Starcraft is a game where every single action echoes through the future and while some actions have much more profound effects than others, it is always in your best interests to help safeguard against unknown factors by maximizing your benefit out of the assets you have. If your 2nd SCV pops out 1 second later than your enemy's does, you are behind... That's all. It's not magic, it's just mathematical fact. It doesn't necessarily mean much at all, but the point is that SC is not usually a game where you can afford to throw away any advantage at all. If you do happen to play a game that ends up being decided by the razor's edge such as 5 minerals worth of unit, and you got a bad split at the beginning, then it's theoretically possible to say you lost that game at the 00:00:00 mark. Even though a thousand other decisions you made might have had more effect on the battle.
On most maps I've been playing, e.g. Kulas and Metalo, if I queue an SCV and instantly move all 6 SCVs to the same, center mineral patch with no split (sometimes a game lags at the beginning, giving me adequate time to perfectly execute whatever split I want and queue my SCV all in the 00:00:00 instant), I will lose almost 1 second of SCV time. It's not a whole second. But it's lost time! It's lost time that is prevented by having a good split; In the same circumstance, if I split my workers to individual patches or even just get a solid half-split, I will have 55 minerals just before my first SCV finishes and comfortably start my second SCV in time to see him in the queue behind the first.
There's really nothing else to do at that point in the game besides edge in whatever perfection you can and use spare moments to think about the map and plan possible tech\upgrade\production\expansion routes out in your head.
|
Honestly it shouldn't matter either way. If right clicking 3 at a time in one area, reboxing 3 others, and splitting those away to another section of the mineral field made a big difference, I think that would be more agitating to the community.
"Yeah, I would have had him in the late game, but he split his units better than me when the game started."
Seems silly to me.
|
a difference of a few hundreds of milliseconds can be crucial in SC2. Also, if you macro perfectly, you can actually accelerate your usual exponential growth in eco by a fair amount.
In other words: it's harder to be a pro at it. If you don't drop the buildings at the exact right timing, or if you become supply blocked by even just a second, you've just lost your lead gained through the split.
|
The difference doesn't only apply, to minerals, actually. Quicker Workers = Quicker Minerals = Quicker Gas.
Now people care 
|
Good news for terrible players with awful apm like me. Bad news for top end gaming.
|
On June 03 2010 05:34 AncienTs wrote:
If all data is true, this is definitely bad news because it means the skill gradient just became slightly smaller..
sigh
Lol, yeah. And when some noob beats you, you'll know it was because the game splilt his workers for him.
|
On June 03 2010 05:36 Kyuki wrote:
lol people who think you skill is defined by splitting your workers.. haha
This. The elitism in this thread is just absurd. Do you really want the first 3 seconds of the game to be the measure of your skill as a player? Give me a break.
|
On June 03 2010 05:48 numberThirtyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 05:34 AncienTs wrote:
If all data is true, this is definitely bad news because it means the skill gradient just became slightly smaller..
sigh Lol, yeah. And when some noob beats you, you'll know it was because the game splilt his workers for him.
If it was via cheese, then yeah it just might have tilted the balance in his favor =)
|
On June 03 2010 05:50 Kletus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 05:48 numberThirtyOne wrote:On June 03 2010 05:34 AncienTs wrote:
If all data is true, this is definitely bad news because it means the skill gradient just became slightly smaller..
sigh Lol, yeah. And when some noob beats you, you'll know it was because the game splilt his workers for him. If it was via cheese, then yeah it just might have tilted the balance in his favor =)
Only if you tried a fancier split and got behind because you didn't do it right. Otherwise, the resources should be even, if the numbers in the OP are right.
|
LOL at people who think splitting should give an edge. That is just so silly.
|
This can only be decided by a new UMS called "Hardcore Worker Split Throwdown!!!", supporting up to 8 players in a 3 second game that's based entirely on the opening split of course. Do you have what it takes?
|
United States889 Posts
On June 03 2010 05:48 Kultcher wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 05:36 Kyuki wrote:
lol people who think you skill is defined by splitting your workers.. haha This. The elitism in this thread is just absurd. Do you really want the first 3 seconds of the game to be the measure of your skill as a player? Give me a break.
Elitism?
Elitism is 'We should be given a large advantage because we split and they don't'. These are gamers saying 'We should be rewarded for our superior mechanical abilities.' The second one is reasonable, and that's what people want. Maybe the split isn't the exact issue, and it probably shouldn't be, but it could be/sort of seems like they intentionally made the split not matter, which would seem an attempt at marginalizing the little things that separate players.
|
I see no split, half split, and F1 split , but what about a Full (i.e. Perfect) Split? Has anyone tested that? Can anyone even do that?
|
8751 Posts
On June 03 2010 05:48 Kultcher wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 05:36 Kyuki wrote:
lol people who think you skill is defined by splitting your workers.. haha This. The elitism in this thread is just absurd. Do you really want the first 3 seconds of the game to be the measure of your skill as a player? Give me a break.
Ideally, every second of the game measures skill.
|
On June 03 2010 05:53 numberThirtyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 05:50 Kletus wrote:On June 03 2010 05:48 numberThirtyOne wrote:On June 03 2010 05:34 AncienTs wrote:
If all data is true, this is definitely bad news because it means the skill gradient just became slightly smaller..
sigh Lol, yeah. And when some noob beats you, you'll know it was because the game splilt his workers for him. If it was via cheese, then yeah it just might have tilted the balance in his favor =) Only if you tried a fancier split and got behind because you didn't do it right. Otherwise, the resources should be even, if the numbers in the OP are right.
Well I posted my own numbers on page 4 and I get a 5mineral lead using F1 over the other methods. Today was the first time I used F1 too, maybe I'm just a natural.
|
I'm glad they kept it simple.
|
If income is the issue, rather than cash on hand, a lot of things become clearer. Imagine building nothing but SCVs until you have 1000 minerals, then taking all your SCVs off mining and continuing to build 20 more SCVs, without sending them to mine. Then, put all of them back to mining and you have the same income that you would have had if you had kept all SCVs mining the whole time.
Thinking about it this way, as long as you build your first SCV as fast as possible when the game starts, then all that matters is that you have no time between the building of that SCV and the second one.
I'm probably just stating the obvious to most people (this isn't directed as an argument to anyone), but not seeing it as an exponential lose certainly opened my own eyes. Makes me feel safer pulling SCVs off to repair :D
|
sweet.. no longer splitting... ever!
|
On June 03 2010 05:55 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 05:48 Kultcher wrote:On June 03 2010 05:36 Kyuki wrote:
lol people who think you skill is defined by splitting your workers.. haha This. The elitism in this thread is just absurd. Do you really want the first 3 seconds of the game to be the measure of your skill as a player? Give me a break. Elitism? Elitism is 'We should be given a large advantage because we split and they don't'. These are gamers saying 'We should be rewarded for our superior mechanical abilities.' The second one is reasonable, and that's what people want.
It's two to three clicks + 1 or 2 box selections (or a bunch of F1-clicks) if you go that route. If the advantage exists, it's the most mindless test of mechanical ability in SC2. No one is saying that all mechanical ability should be removed, just that the loss of a single mindless 3-click mechanic test at the start of the game is no big deal. Literally the ONLY thing you are doing at that point in the game is focusing on your split. It's not like other mechanical tests where there are decisions around it + the mechanical test. You're not even trying to manage your attention at this point of the game. It's literally just a test of how quickly and accurately you can click, box select, click, box select, click.
It's a test of something that you do throughout the entire game. Your box select accuracy and ability to click quickly are no less important without worker split.
Imagine it the other way around, if there was no split advantage in BW and suddenly there was one in SC2 no one would be praising the designers for their superior game design skill. People would just think, "WTF that's a pointless change over BW, what a pain."
You are being elitist, it has nothing to do with the level of mechanical skill in the game. You're essentially complaining about removing 1 thimble of water from a gallon jug.
If every moment of the game has to test player skill, then SC already fails at that because there are large gaps of time in the first 9-10 workers where you have nothing to do (hence why people spam).
|
On June 03 2010 06:00 BlasiuS wrote:
I see no split, half split, and F1 split , but what about a Full (i.e. Perfect) Split? Has anyone tested that? Can anyone even do that?
That's what an F1 split is, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
